Mendheim et al (OT)

#11 October 24th 03, 06:48 AM

When my time allows, I may write more on the history here.

(Nick) wrote in message
. com...
-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in
message ...
From: (Nick)
Message-id:
-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message
...
(snipped)
Interestingly (or uninterestingly, if you're an adherent of the views
expressed through the medium of Ms. Austen's typically adept
characterisation)

Would an anachronism be avoided by referring to Our Jane as 'Miss Austen'?

Is it anachronistic to refer to a proto-feminist in that manner?

'There is no difference between Time and of the three dimensions of Space
except that our consciousness moves along it.'
--H.G. Wells (The Time Machine)

Dear Mr Houlsby,

If Jane Austen had been a RAF fighter pilot in the Battle of Britain, then
she should have flown the Spitfire because 'in...Hampshire, *Hurricanes*
hardly ever happen' (from 'My Fair Lady'). :-)

When she was sixteen years old, Jane Austen wrote a satirical manuscript,
'The History of England by a partial, prejudiced, & ignorant Historian.
(Note: There will be very few Dates in this History)'. Someone today may
purchase a book with a complete facsimile of the original text.

Would she disapprove? Does she care (what's left of her)? Does anyone?

Have you ever met some of the members of the Jane Austen Society? :-)

http://www.janeausten.soci.freeuk.com/

Now, "appeasement", as Government Policy, of course, (while maintaining
an intrinsic similarity) meant something rather different at the time
of, say, Baldwin's government, from what it meant in Chamberlain's time.
In the latter case, here in Britain we were in the position of needing to
rearm, as quickly as possible. We had limited resources available to us.

I doubt that Prime Minister Chamberlain thought of his policies as though he
were the absolute national leader of the United States. :-)

What was not altogether clear was whether we should be concentrating upon
preparing for a desert war (in north Africa, against Italy) an air war
(in northwestern Europe, against Germany) or a naval war (in the Pacific,
against Japan). This dilemma perhaps goes some way towards explaining
the reason why pursuing a policy of appeasement (which bought time while
the above question was beginning to clarify) was considered, in late
1930s Great Britain, by the-powers-that-be, not only to be expedient,
but actually rather prudent.

I lack the time now to discuss the 1938 Munich Crisis in detail.

Of course, if it had not been for Mitchell,
(snipped)
The Hawker Hurricane, not the more glamourous and less numerous Spitfire,
was Fighter Command's workhorse in the Battle of Britain. The Hurricane
was slower than the Spitfire, yet it was preferred in the vital role of
intercepting the Luftwaffe's bombers. The Hurricane had these advantages
over the Spitfi

1) The Hurricane could withstand more battle damage.

Right, its fuselage was mostly linen, which made it easier to "patch up"
and return quickly to battle.

The fuselage was not made of linen. The early model Hurricanes had wings
that were composed of metal frames covered by fabric; the later model
Hurricanes had all-metal stressed-skin wings.

James 'Ginger' Lacey, a famous RAF fighter ace of the Battle of Britain, once
fondly described the Hurricane as being a collection of non-essential parts,
which could be shot up without eliminating anything really important. :-)

http://www.the-battle-of-britain.co..../Hurricane.htm

2) The Hurricane was a more stable gun platform.

That characteristic was important when engaging bombers in combat.

3) The Hurricane probably was easier for the inexperienced pilots to fly.

That was especially true for taking off and landing the aeroplane safely.

You omitted an important capability:

I was writing in this specific context, comparing the Hurricane with the
Spitfire *only* in regard to the successful interception of bombers.

4) Its turning circle was smaller than perhaps any of the enemy's aircraft.
This enabled the Hurricane's pilots to outmanoeuvre their foes and attack
them from behind.

Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire enjoyed ample margins of superiority in
speed and manoeuverability over every Luftwaffe bomber, which normally enabled
each of them to reach advantageous firing positions. Any minor differences
between the Hurricane and the Spitfire in manoeuverability would have been
irrelevant in the operational role of intercepting bombers, wherein firepower
and the capacity to withstand battle damage were much more significant factors
in the fighter's expected success.

In general, an average RAF pilot in a Hurricane or Spitfire could out-turn an
average Luftwaffe pilot in a Messerschmitt Bf-109E in the Battle of Britain.
But there's evidence that the best Bf-109E pilots could use a special
technique (flying with 'slats-out') and out-turn the Hurricane and the
Spitfire. As I recall, when one expert Luftwaffe pilot was questioned after
the war about his claim that his Bf-109E consistently had been able to
out-turn the Spitfires in his dogfights in the Battle of Britain, he replied
that if what he was saying had not been true, then he should not have
expected to survive to say it.

Royce

The North American P-51 Mustang became a successful long-range escort
fighter in the United States's strategic bombing of Germany only after it
was installed with a British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

Yes, indeed.

British scientists and engineers made vital contributions to the United States
war effort, especially early in the war. The Americans were able to base
their lavishly funded research and development programmes on what already had
been achieved by the British, with fewer resources. The Americans were
granted the the most advanced British technology in radar, sonar, and jet
engines, not to mention the life-saving 'miracle drug', penicillin. Those
contributions also significantly helped United States industries to gain
advantages over British industries in postwar economic and technological
competition.

When the American M-4 Sherman tank, in British and Canadian Army service, was
armed with a much more potent British '17 pounder' gun, it became a realistic
threat even to the German Panther and Tiger tanks. Oddly enough, the
Americans decided not to arm their forthcoming Sherman tanks with the
'17 pounder' gun. Evidently on account of their characteristic nationalism,
the Americans preferred to continue building their Sherman tanks with the
less potent but, more significantly for them, "all-American" 75mm gun. When
in combat with the German Panther and Tiger tanks, did the American crews
take pride in knowing that their Sherman tanks were armed with the American
75mm gun instead of the more potent British '17 pounder' gun?

and, perhaps most especially, Turing, we would have lost WWII.

Some historians have contended that the United Kingdom did lose that war
in the sense that, at least partly as a consequence, it lost most of the
British Empire not long afterward.

Yes, quite.

Some countries, such as Poland, tend to become the historical victims of their
geography. With Hitler on one side and Stalin on the other, how could Poland
have preserved its de facto national independence after 1939? From September
1939 to June 1941 (when Germany invaded the Soviet Union), Stalin also
brutally treated the Poles who had fallen under his empire.

O, ye of little faith! Should you not have simply trusted the Americans
to "save the world" then, as they like to keep saying that they always
have and will again? :-)

Surely you don't mean to imply that Americans DON'T do this?! :-)

I expect the Americans to strive to make the world safer for Coca-Cola (or
even for Pepsi), but not necessarily to help provide safe drinking water for
all those other people who need it. If there promises to be profit in it for
a United States corporation, then it may seem more likely to be done sooner.

'Money is neither god nor devil, that it should make one noble and another
vile.'
--Anthony Trollope (Phineas Finn)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mendheim et al	michael adams	rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)	1	July 22nd 03 06:52 AM